Article 227 powers can be exercised to interfere with perverse, unreasonable orders of trial court

The Delhi High Court while deciding the matter of Sneha Ahuja v Satish Chander Ahuja on 15.11.2021 held that even though Article 227 does not provide it with powers to sit as an appellate court but when the trial court orders are perverse, unreasonable and passed by overlooking the relevant facts, the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere.

Facts

The petitioner was the wife, who was married to Respondent in 1995 and lived with her till 2014.  Upon filing of divorce petition by the husband, his parents sought eviction of the petitioner which was granted by the trial court. The trial court directed the wife to vacate the property within 40 days of husband paying her two month’s advance rent for the future house which she will take on rent.

Analysis of the judgement

The said order was challenged before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein it was observed by the High Court that the trial court seemed keen on passing the eviction order without “proper application of mind” to all the circumstances.

The following was held:

“No doubt the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised as if the court is an Appellate Court. However, when the learned Trial Court overlooks significant facts and considers irrelevant facts, this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction would interfere with a decision of a Trial Court, especially in the event the orders appear to be perverse and unreasonable,” the judgment said.

The court pulled up the trial court for its ‘total insensitivity’ for issuing the direction for eviction at the peak of the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic and noted that petitioner had to actually file an application in October, 2020 seeking payment of electricity charges as her husband had refused to pay the same. Thus, in light of these special circumstances, the High Court observed that the trial court’s direction to the woman to shift out into a rented accommodation were ‘most unwarranted’.